Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 11:53 AM ET, 12/ 7/2010

Poll: Obama supporters strongly opposed to deal extending Bush tax cuts

By Greg Sargent

Okay, we now have our first poll measuring the impact on the Democratic base of Obama's support for a temporary extension of all the Bush tax cuts. Suffice it to say this is a major, make-or-break issue with them that could have real political ramifications for the President and Congressional Democrats.

The poll, done by the respected non-partisan firm Survey USA, surveyed over 1,000 people who contributed time or money to Obama in 2008, and found intense, overwhelming opposition among them to Obama's support for a temporary extension of the tax cuts for the rich. This supports the notion that there may indeed be a serious liberal revolt in reaction to it.

Indeed, majorities of people who contributed to Obama in 2008 say they are less likely to support Obama and Democrats because of his backing for the temporary extension.

I got an advance look at the poll, which was commissioned by MoveOn, and you can read the polling memo right here. The key findings:

The poll shows clearly that these contributors are deeply opposed (74%) to a deal with Republicans to extend the Bush-era tax breaks for those making over $250,000 a year. The depth of opposition to a deal is severe with former Obama contributors saying that they are less likely (57%) to support Democrats who support this deal in 2012.

A majority of the former Obama contributors surveyed also say that the President's deal also makes them less likely (51%) to contribute to his reelection campaign in 2012.

So 57 percent of Obama contributors say they are less likely to support Congressional Dems for reelection if they back the temporary extension, meaning there could be a political cost for Dems for embracing it. And more than half, 51 percent, say they are less likely to shell out cash for Obama's reelection in 2012, suggesting it could damage his ability to turn out the same coalition that elected him in 2008.

These findings goes directly to the heart of a question that commentators are starting to ask: Does the left's anger matter? Will it have any impact? No doubt some will argue that it can only help Obama to anger the left.

But clearly there's also a real risk that this kind of deal -- and the broader strategy the White House appears to be embracing -- could further demoralize the base. While Adam Serwer is right to note that over time passions on the left could subside, particularly if Obama delivers on other core liberal priorities such as the repeal of don't ask don't tell, it's also perfectly possible that trading away core liberal priorities will levy major political costs on Obama and Democrats in general.

UPDATE, 12:18 p.m.: In fairness to the White House, it should be noted that this poll was taken yesterday in the lead up to the final announcement of the deal. So it's possible that some of the specifics of the deal -- the extension of unemployment benefits and other concessions Obama won -- might end up mitigating this somewhat. That said, it has been widely known for days that the centerpiece of this deal would be a temporary extension of all the cuts, and this poll does show overwhelming opposition to that central concession by Obama. I've edited the above to reflect this.

UPDATE, 12:39 p.m.: I'm told the poll was actually conducted beginning at 6:17 p.m., around the time of Obama's announcement, and for a few hours after that. So it's perfectly possible this could partly reflect reaction to the deal itself.

By Greg Sargent  | December 7, 2010; 11:53 AM ET
Categories:  House Dems, Senate Dems, taxes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A liberal revolt over the tax cut deal?
Next: Is liberal anger at Obama overstated?

Comments

OK, so Obama seems to be doing Clinton to avoid being a Carter.

It had to happen.

Posted by: battleground51 | December 7, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"51 percent, say they are less likely to shell out cash for Obama's reelection in 2012,"
---------------------------------------
Obama still probably has the support of his overseas, non-citizen donors. That'll bring in some cash.

Posted by: illogicbuster | December 7, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

My gut sense is that the poll results indicate a camel-back-breaking straw as much as outrage over the specifics.

Obama needs to do something to assuage the left that they didn't waste their votes in 2008.

Shoring up the economy by letting tax cuts on the rich expire might have helped morale on the left. That opportunity has now be frittered away. But there are other things Obama and the Democrats can do in the short term to show they give a damn about their supporters and about everything they campaigned on.

One such thing, of course, would be to whip the votes (Manchin and other timid Dems as well as Collins and other Reps) to carry through the repeal of discrimination in the military. I, for one, wouldn't be quite so disheartened if that happened.

Posted by: S1VA | December 7, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Published: Thursday, 27 Mar 2008 | 4:15 PM ET

"BARTIROMO: Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown? Isn't that going to put a further strain on people?

Sen. OBAMA: Well, look, there's no doubt that anything I do is going to be premised on what the economic situation is when I take office. I'm going to be sworn in in January, we don't know what the economy's going to look like at that point. And, you know, the thing you can--you can be assured of is that I'm not going to making these decisions based on ideology. I'm not a dogmatist."

Posted by: mikefromArlington | December 7, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"oes the left's anger over this deal matter? Will it have any impact?"

No. After the Nader debacles, it doesn't. And, FWIW, the Republicans can defy the Tea Partiers too. They aren't going anywhere.

Posted by: sold2u | December 7, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

That was from this interview...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/23832520/Transcript_Barack_Obama_Interview

Posted by: mikefromArlington | December 7, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Greg, one note about this poll, it's quite evident that this was done BEFORE the actual contents of the deal were revealed.

So, without knowing what they got, this is a big nothing burger. In general, they're simply saying that he shouldn't compromise, but they're not saying whether they would have liked or not liked the deal he actually got.

Would like to see what they would think of that.

Posted by: calchala | December 7, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Not thread bombing, I just can't keep up with all the new columns and didn't want to be stuck in a dead thread.
--------

@Greg,
"Maybe there will be a severe backlash among liberals"
-------

LOL. Let the posturing begin. Naturally, a certain number of liberal Senators and House members must oppose this "compromise" on extending the tax cuts. What else can they do? They have to take SOMETHING to the folks back home. What better than a meaningless vote (there'll be a count to make sure the bill will pass before permission is granted for some to vote against it) and a lot of hot air and gut wind to placate the rubes. Priceless.

I'm willing to agree with Ethan2010 that Obama agreed to this because he really believes it's the best available option for the country. If the economy gets better in the next couple of years, it's a feather in his cap; if not, nothing may save him, but at least he won't be accused of raising taxes in a time of economic crisis. It's also his best political move. People like Liam and Filmnoia will be there for him in 2012, no matter what they say today, and congressional Dems up for re-election are smart enough to know that their fate, to some extent, is tied to his.

This compromise won't hurt Obama with independents. And he isn't going to get a serious primary challenge, regardless of all the current whining and fussing.

He's actually standing up to some of the lefties in Congress for a change. Good move. He needs to get out in front of this "compromise" as its chief architect---for the benefit of the middle class---and not be seen as having it forced on him by Republicans.

It does leaves some of our more liberal posters in a bit of a bind. Since we've heard for nine years now that the Bush tax cuts are bad for the economy, what must we think now that they've become the Bush/Obama tax cuts? Does this confirm that America is a center/right country? Is this a form of triangulation?

Good to see 12BarBlues out and about again. Browsing last night's posts, I also noticed Noacoler/ChrisFox back under a new moniker. He's evidently escaped the pit and returned to the hovel.

Posted by: Brigade | December 7, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

As if these "supporters" are going to suddenly vote Palin for President?

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 7, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

OK, so Obama seems to be doing Clinton to avoid being a Carter.

It had to happen.

Posted by: battleground51 | December 7, 2010 11:57 AM
-------

Absolutely. He's still not as tough a negotiator as Clinton, but he's getting his sea legs. His lack of executive experience, coming in, was sorely in evidence the way he let Reid and Pelosi push him around during his first two years and needlessly antagonize those few Republicans who were actually willing to work with him.

Posted by: Brigade | December 7, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I also noticed Noacoler/ChrisFox back under a new moniker.
--------------------------------------
Missed that. Do you remember his moniker? Somehow, I doubt it's him, but I could be wrong.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 7, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

It wouldn't be the "Left" if it weren't complaining.

Sometimes I think these "progressives" that claim to be Obama's base didn't listen to a thing Obama said during his two year campaign for the Presidency.

Obama is not, and never claimed to be, a liberal ideologue. He is a left of center pragmatist. That is how he ran. That is what an examination of his biography shows.

Nor is Obama a liberal firebrand who will give the GOP a smack down. If he were, he would have dealt with the Hillary Clinton/Mark Penn "Kitchen Sink" strategy in a different manner.

Many of the most vocal Obama critics on the left want you to believe that Obama has performed a "Bait and switch." They want you to think Obama has betrayed lefties. He hasn't. He has done pretty much what he said he would do during the campaign. The problem isn't that Obama tricked progressives; the problem is that progressives weren't paying attention during the campaign.

Posted by: HansSolo | December 7, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Brigade,

One of the things I admire most about President Obama is his willingness to do what is right over what is popular. And, given the political realities of the midterm elections, compromise was the right approach.

Quite frankly, his administration has proven his willingness to do the right thing time and time again, even in going against his own party. It's just that you have chosen this single moment in time to recognize it.

If he continues on this track -- solidly defending the Middle Class while constructively negotiating with both parties -- and comes out in favor of specific electoral reforms in advance of 2012 he wins in a walk.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 7, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

If he continues on this track solidly defending the Middle Class while constructively negotiating with both parties and comes out in favor of specific electoral reforms in advance of 2012 he wins in a walk.
---------------------------------------------
Assuming that employment has improved, imo.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 7, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I also noticed Noacoler/ChrisFox back under a new moniker.
--------------------------------------
Missed that. Do you remember his moniker? Somehow, I doubt it's him, but I could be wrong.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 7, 2010 12:18 PM
-----

Either him or someone doing a good impression. Check last night's Happy Hour Round-Up post beginning at 2:44 AM. The moniker is caothien9.

Posted by: Brigade | December 7, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

If he continues on this track -- solidly defending the Middle Class while constructively negotiating with both parties -- and comes out in favor of specific electoral reforms in advance of 2012 he wins in a walk.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 7, 2010 12:24 PM
-----

I wouldn't be surprised.

Posted by: Brigade | December 7, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

"As if these "supporters" are going to suddenly vote Palin for President?"

There is always that good old option perfected by about 35-40% of the public -
just stay home on election day.I'm fully prepared for that. I doubt what with a GOP House and a larger GOP Senate that Obama is going to be in any position to throw a bone to the Left in the next two years.

"and comes out in favor of specific electoral reforms in advance of 2012 he wins in a walk."

I don't know what kind of electoral reform Ethan is referring to. The only reform worth anything seems to me to be total public financing for all federal and state races.That's not going to happen because of embedded self interest.

Posted by: filmnoia | December 7, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

If he continues on this track -- solidly defending the Middle Class while constructively negotiating with both parties -- and comes out in favor of specific electoral reforms in advance of 2012 he wins in a walk.

===================================
He only needs to convert another 10% of the country into teat suckers and he'll be president for life.

Posted by: peterg73 | December 7, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

@brig,

That's him. Well, he'll spice things up around here.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 7, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

filmnoia,

There are a lot of good ideas floating around in the ether. They are just ignored by the MSM because they are not partisan.

Here are a few ideas:

Open primaries
Redistricting reform
Registration reform
Instant Run-off Voting (IRV)

These and other ideas are represented in this batch of letters to President Obama by Indies:

http://www.independentvoting.org/activistcenter/documents/letters.Obama.2.pdf

Worth a read.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 7, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama's biggest mistake here is not being out in front of this compromise deal. It looks as if he caved to conservative pressure. So it wins him no brownie points with the masses of moderates who voted against him in 2010.

Obama has to be more aggressive with his move to the center. He cannot simply ignore his party's leftward base, he must demonize it, disenfranchise it and demoralize it. Only then will any move to the center be taken seriously by....centrists. The overall numbers of strongly liberal voters who are not black (who will vote for Obama no matter what) are insignificant when compared to moderates and centrists, and it's THESE voters whom he needs.

Obama has to tell the Mahers, the Olbermanns and the Sargents of the political world to go to hell. This is not how you do it.

Posted by: TheLastBrainLeft | December 7, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

"And, FWIW, the Republicans can defy the Tea Partiers too. They aren't going anywhere. "

That's 100 percent wrong. The Tea Partiers are prepared to ditch the GOP as soon as any appearance of caving in on core issues is presented. It might be suicidal for the GOP, but they don't care. It took great efforts to keep the TP in the GOP fold this time around.

Posted by: TheLastBrainLeft | December 7, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Most of the "ultra-rich" are Democrats (entertainment industry, movie stars, music industry, pro-athletes, comedians, etc.)... so are Democrats hateful of their "own"?
Any ultra-rich person who Wants to pay more taxes CAN, too, there's nothing stopping them.
This seems to be more about "hating and punishing the "so-called" rich than anything else.
Jobs are the focus; if you increase taxes on small businesses.. it means Less Jobs.
Jobs will reduce the deficit too

Posted by: ohioan | December 7, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

OK, so Obama seems to be doing Clinton to avoid being a Carter.


_______________________


Well put - However "doing an Obama" is going to mean saying one thing during an election, and going back on your promises and doing something totally different once in office.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Greg let's not bother with the false dichotomy, whether the problem with Obama is a process problem, that he won't fight, or an ideological problem, that he is too moderate or whatever. The people who got Obama elected (as opposed to The Clintons our other choice) have been alternately ignored and attacked by his administration.

Maybe he thinks he can get re-elected for having tacked to the right, by winning over moderates. That could only work if the Rs with real money are unable to destroy Palin as a candidate before their convention. But Obama won't beat Romney without his original base.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 7, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"So 57 percent of Obama contributors say they are less likely to support Congressional Dems for reelection if they back the temporary extension, meaning there could be a political cost for Dems for embracing it. And more than half, 51 percent, say they are less likely to shell out cash for Obama's reelection in 2012, suggesting it could damage his ability to turn out the same coalition that elected him in 2008."

Poll results are one thing, election results another.

The time for these Obama supporters to have made their views known on the Bush tax cuts was over the summer and during the mid-term election.

"One closing remark that I want to make: It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election. There may be complaints about us not having gotten certain things done, not fast enough, making certain legislative compromises. But right now, we've got a choice between a Republican Party that has moved to the right of George Bush and is looking to lock in the same policies that got us into these disasters in the first place, versus an administration that, with some admitted warts, has been the most successful administration in a generation in moving progressive agendas forward.

The idea that we've got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining, is just irresponsible.

Everybody out there has to be thinking about what's at stake in this election and if they want to move forward over the next two years or six years or 10 years on key issues like climate change, key issues like how we restore a sense of equity and optimism to middle-class families who have seen their incomes decline by five percent over the last decade. If we want the kind of country that respects civil rights and civil liberties, we'd better fight in this election. And right now, we are getting outspent eight to one by these 527s that the Roberts court says can spend with impunity without disclosing where their money's coming from. In every single one of these congressional districts, you are seeing these independent organizations outspend political parties and the candidates by, as I said, factors of four to one, five to one, eight to one, 10 to one.

We have to get folks off the sidelines. People need to shake off this lethargy, people need to buck up. Bringing about change is hard — that's what I said during the campaign. It has been hard, and we've got some lumps to show for it. But if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place.

If you're serious, now's exactly the time that people have to step up."

- President Obama

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395?RS_show_page=6

I guess the progressive folks weren't serious in the first place.

Posted by: jnc4p | December 7, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse


Ethan-

"Open primaries
Redistricting reform
Registration reform
Instant Run-off Voting (IRV)"

Except for re-districting reform, I don't see these other proposals of having much significant effect. Whenever the notion of allowing people to sign up to vote when they go to get a driver's license it drives the GOP bat s--t crazy. They don't want it to be made so easy for "those people" to vote.
As long as candidate #1 has more money to campaign than candidate #2, we will never have any reform that will appreciably change the status quo.
The Citizen's United decision would need to be torn asunder. There are no many business and political interests standing in the way to get this done.

Posted by: filmnoia | December 7, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

The democrats have morphed into the DEAD AGENDA SOCIETY

- debating the fine details of policies which have no relevance

- debating the fine details of policies which have no chance of becoming law

- debating the fine details of a liberal world which does not exist and will never exist.


Democrats: Keep on debating yourselves.

You can't raise taxes in the middle of an Economic Crisis - it just proves how out of touch the entire DEAD AGENDA SOCIETY is.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Compromise

It is clear to me that the democrats all are KICKING AND SCREAMING to this Compromise


What an unbelievably CHILDISH reaction to what was CLEARLY a campaign commitment.


Where were all these democrats when Obama was saying "compromise and bipartisanship" in 2008 ??? They were in the AUDIENCE, CHEERING - and the American People is sick of hearing these democrats who are all going BACK on what was CLEARLY their OWN party's platform in 2008.


The country doesn't want to hear it.


Even worse, the democrats today are destroying all the credibility they might have left in the country. If they can not be mature about a compromise, then the country is done with the democrats.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 7, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Okay, I still support the President but it seems to me that, the argument about raising Taxes the Rich have been won by the idiots out there. The one's that think you can lower defict by keeping lower taxes for people making 250K and above.
What have those people given up, or the Republicans that just say NO to everything that not of their idea. So, Mr President; If we stand for nothing, we will cave to everything. STAND UP PEPOLE!

Posted by: ggant | December 7, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Filmnoia, he campaigned on changing the system. That is one campaign promise I'd like to see him take more seriously. I think he will. I agree that campaign financing is a major problem, but it is such a sticky problem that it would take a major confluence of events to get both parties to the same table. Obama could make headway into the other issues by coming out forcefully for non-partisan reforms that increase the impact of independent voices in campaigns. He does that, and, like I said, he wins in a walk.

@LastBrain: "He cannot simply ignore his party's leftward base, he must demonize it, disenfranchise it and demoralize it"

No No No, and No.

People are sick of the partisanship. What you have proposed is not a solution but a right-wing fantasy that would only exacerbate an already historic partisan division. President Obama needs to proactively reach out to Independent, Unaffiliated and Disenfranchised voters (~40% of the voting population), not suck up to the lunatic right.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 7, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

All, here's the counterargument: Generally the notion of anger at Obama on the left is a big overstatement:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/is_liberal_anger_at_obama_over.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 7, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Once again the tail wags the dog. When will the people realise that the republicans own them lock stock and barrel thanks to the robert's court and so many other stupid changes that they have made to remove every check and balance in the constitution since Nixon/Agnew and the watergate capitulation! To allow the transfer of wealth to continue is to invite the same revolution we witnessed in the fall of the Soviet Empire not so many years ago and that was brought about not by Reagan but by spending beyond the means of the prolitariate to pay the freight. Exactly what agenda Bush/Chaney used to destroy US.

Posted by: anOPINIONATEDsob | December 7, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"Agreement Will Create or Save 2.2 Million Jobs Despite Wasteful Tax Policies"

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/12/tax_agreement.html

Posted by: associate20 | December 7, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I am 25 years old an have not been able to find work for more then 2 years. I've somehow managed to get by but I am at the point where I can no longer pay my bills and manage to live. I am ready to kill myself because I cannot live like this anymore. The stress is eating me alive and I can't live day by day anymore. There are not enough jobs and employers would rather hire someone that hasn't been out of work for soo long or they send the jobs overseas. SERIOUSLY WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR COUNTRY??? do they want the people who are struggling to kill themselves?? Is that why they would rather give tax breaks to the rich and not help the poor. It is so sad what is happening to our country. I feel bad for all the kids that have to suffer through all this. THANK GOD I HAVE NO KIDS, I WOUDL NOT WANT TO BRING A CHILD INTO THIS SICK AND TWISTED WORLD. THANKS AMERICA FOR KICKING US IN THE A**, The ones that actually need the help. I hope they use the stimulus to help bury every one that kills themself over all of this.

Posted by: mm-99er | December 7, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

"Agreement Will Create or Save 2.2 Million Jobs Despite Wasteful Tax Policies"

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/12/tax_agreement.html
----------------------

Should add that that's even better than the rough 1.3 million that I was estimating this morning.

Their analysis is, of course, more sophisticated; it takes multipliers into consideration.

Posted by: associate20 | December 7, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse


"but it is such a sticky problem that it would take a major confluence of events to get both parties to the same table."

What kind of event? Perhaps an alien landing on the Washingtom Mall a la The Day The Earth Stood Still", and a major depression that dwarfs the 1930s. The parties aren't coming to any table. The GOP doesn't want the system to change, and neither do many Dems. It serves them well.
There was a reason why Thomas, Alito and Roberts were nominated to the SC. There were older members of the law profession more qualified. They are all relatively young, and the thinking of the Bush family is no matter politically how things change, there will always be the SC standing in the way of any significant progess, while protecting the wealthy and powerful.

Posted by: filmnoia | December 7, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Here, in terms that we can all understand, is the debt mess that has been created by successive Democrat and Republican Administrations:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2010/12/putting-pile-of-united-states-debt-into.html

It is simply not right that bipartisan dickering has been used as an excuse by both Parties to tax and spend OUR money irresponsibly.

Posted by: Baywoodfarm | December 7, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"I am ready to kill myself"

mm-99er, really, do not kill yourself. That would be incredibly sad.

I've experienced long intervals of unemployment in my career, so I have a few words of advice for you. I would recommend three things:

1) Volunteer - get out of the habit of sending resume after resume. Get out of your house. Find a local cause and volunteer. Just do it. Even if it is something as simple as filing papers for a local charity. Just getting out of the house and out of the mental rut will improve your well-being. But additionally, if you volunteer at an organization that interests you, or you are able to choose a volunteer activity that shows off your skills, then you are more likely to be hired by that organization. Volunteer work also looks great on a resume for a number of reasons.

2) Train - find free online or offline classes to train you on different skill-sets. My advice would be to pick a career that interests you, find out what skills are necessary for that career, and then spend time learning and increasing your skill-set. If you have the money, take some classes. This stuff also improves your resume.

3) Long-Term - If you're not sure what you want to do long-term, do some research on fields that are growing and fields that you think will be there in 20 years. For example, the medical field is growing, the energy field is growing, the manufacturing field is growing. Target companies in one of these areas rather than a more narrow area where jobs are incredibly competitive.

Overall, be positive and pro-active. When sending resumes fails, try something else, like attending a social group or meeting on a topic that interests you. Getting out there locally has a benefit. You CAN do it. I got my current job in April of 2009 during the middle of the job crash when people were losing jobs all over the place. I was sending out resume after resume and was depressed that I couldn't get a job doing exactly what I wanted... then I started volunteering and a month later I got a job through a posting on CraigsList. It's not my ideal job but it pays the bills.

Good luck.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 7, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

C'mon now. I was not only an Obama contributor but also a bundler and I'm pleased with this decision as well as the inevitable centrist decisions to come. He'd lost me completely mid 2009 and changed my political affiliation to independent when I was a fifth generation down home centrist democrat. But we all voted for Obama, independents, democrats, and republicans alike because of George Bush. This was based upon the centrist campaign sentiments Obama expressed during the General. What the far left fails to realize is that a majority of folks described above didn't vote in any fashion for a Progressive President but somehow the Progressives think we all did. Surprise!!!! The faux assumption of the left’s socio-political power support delusion is swallowing you folks alive in real time but unfortunately it isn’t going to change. If Obama tact’s more to the center, he has not only my time but money and vote back but this is going to take some work on his part. Yeah, we want this HR3950 reconciliation again, NOT and will not again in our lifetimes.

Posted by: spiderbyte88 | December 7, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Funny thing about today. Seems to be a meme that dems are poor, unemployed whining babies. While repubs are just plain correct. Strange. There are demos who are not poor, yet absolutely want the top 2% tax cut to expire so they would pay their fair share share of American citizenship. There are many repubs who are wrong about how the tax cuts will create jobs they didn't create the last time. But does it matter? Obama has given up and walked away from the dogpile.

Posted by: kravitzkravitz | December 7, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

No power on the left? Are you serious? Have you seen the last elections? Do you think the Democrats got such a beating because of only liberal policies?

I am afraid you have it wrong. There was very little motivated support during the campaign from the lefties; you know, the ones that spend dozens of hours on the phone and canvassing. Who is left in Congress on the Democratic side? Moderates? Centrists? Of course not. The liberals have survived, the ones that their supporters worked their fingers to the bones for.

Somehow the MSM interpretation of the election results got it all wrong. The Dems did not deliver on health care, the bailout, the finance reform and the lefties did not show up to crank out support for their right-wing candidates. Big surprise. Obama would do well moving to the left if he wants to see the light of day come 2012.

Posted by: rernst | December 7, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

y0 12Bar & Brigade. Yeah back here but not to spice things up. I'm convinced that America is utterly finished and I've made my choice, and it's not to stand in front of the tank. Nope, I left, and now I live in a very warm climate and in a different language and culture. They fly the hammer and sickle here and have billboards showing laborer / farmer / soldier all working toward common goals. Collectivism, baby, we're all in this together, and it rests a lot better on me than the endless conceit of American illusions.

Agreed with the thesis. Extending tax cuts for the rich has no mitigating doubt. The very idea that taxes take away jobs or that taxes hurt the economy is pure right wing myth, no foundation at all, and Obama's latest capitulation is a deal-breaker. It's inexcusable. Democrats should have let all the tax cuts expire with no debate, working on DADT and other legislation, and leaving no fingerprints on the corpse of the cuts.

I gave $1500 to Obama in 2008. Were I still in the USA, I wouldn't give him a penny. I'm disgusted with his timidity.

Oh, life is wonderful here. Luxury, leisure, friendship. Translated my family name, took away the tone mark ("Fox" (Cáo) has negative connotations in Vietnamese, without the tone mark it's tall / noble / high and there's always the representative in Louisiana), and chose a first name. Got a dot VN email.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 7, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Ha ha ha Caothien9, glad you got suckered so badly. I speak and read Vietnamese too and find your post amusing. Hope you adjust to the political One-Party dictatorship with no hiccups, sucker.

As for lil Greg Sargent and polls, today the Gallup Poll came out with another one lil Greg won't be talking about, the one which says that more AMERICANS think highly of GWB than of Obama, by a 47 to 46% margin. And Obama is slipping and sliding slowly down the chute to a one-term presidency, unless he becomes a Clinton and listens to the Independents and not his Alinsky base.

Posted by: djman1141 | December 7, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

The president Lost me on this so called "compromise" and i hope the congress will vote it down and let the Republican vote for it next Year so that the president and republican will own the Deficit. The president to me stands for nothing and somebody should teach him the 'Art of Negotiation and posturing.I know he is good at compromising his Position.

Posted by: charlesnichol | December 7, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

All this political name calling and need for bash liberals make make some of you feel good, but what are we going to do about the deficit (mostly created by the war and this Bush tax cut)? Anyone who really knows what they are talking about in terms of what is actually spent by the US government knows that there is isn't enough discretionary money or "waste" to cut to make a significant dent in the deficit. Going back to the stone age is not the solution.

Posted by: dchavis1 | December 8, 2010 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Obama has tacked right away from the cente and majority.

The people Obama is pissing off is not "the Left," it's the 8,000,0000 vote majority that won the election.

But the press call this huge majority "the Left."

Posted by: BurfordHolly | December 8, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

How can you not show respect to the President of the USA?
He was smart to agree to this deal. And for your information the 2010 election was about illegal immigration. If the Dream act passes the Republicans will be out in 2012 along with most of the Dems. You just don,t get it.

Posted by: designsbypeggy81 | December 9, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company